""Yes, it does: You suggested that I would agree with you if I watched "An Inconvenient Truth".
That logically means that your opinion was formed by "An Inconvenient Truth", or at least that the basis of your opinion can be found in the movie.
So if I watch that movie, I will know everything you know about the environment (everything important, apparently). You think that if I watch the movie, I will have all the necessary facts to reach the only proper conclusion about global warming. Since I would have the knowledge to reach the final and perfect opinion, I would be as much an expert as anyone in the world.
Therefore, you think watching "An Invonvenient Truth" makes a person an expert on global warming. You're gullible, easily influenced, and arrogant in your tiny perspective."
-That's amazing that you had that 'deep' of a conversation in your own head about what I meant by the statement "watch An Inconvenient Truth". It speaks volumes of your reasoning skills, or maybe about your dementia.
I'd go on, but you're either a) (hopefully) trolling, or b) if I typed more than one sentence your head might explode from your attempt in trying to figure out the complexities of what I 'logically' meant by a multi-phrase statement.
You might just be the dumbest person on the OG, and that's saying something!

"You want me prove a negative?"
Why not?
"Or do you actually want facts that don't lead one to conclude man is
severely impacting the climate? 2 + 2 = 4, that's commonly accepted
to be true and it doesn't lead me to conclude man is severely impacting
the climate"
FAB vs the entire scientific community... Who to believe? Hmm...
"But when you say something that is supposed to support the global
warming theory, and I don't think it's solid, I will say so. That's the
point. The burden of proof is on you, not me. Provide some facts that I
can't poke holes in."
Like what? I've posted plenty of info and you'e singled all of one thing
out and that was a future prediction and NOT a global warming
indicator. You haven't poked holes in anything.
"Maybe you don't realize that water flows to sea level. Nobody's going
to have a huge stack of water that somehow won't be shared with the
rest of the world. Your predictions of new deserts are bunk."
Pssst. It has pretty much already happenned. You see their are these
things called "rain patterns". Normally due to naturally occuring
phenomena which shape ocean/wind currents, rain is directed towards
some areas more than others. The fertile crescent (Baghdad) used to
be ummm... fertile. When climate shifts, so do rain patterns which can
lead areas that were once forrest to turn to desert and vice versa.

"last thousand years = 0.5 celsius rise."
1) It is hotter now than it has been in the past 1000 years + even the last
2000+ years...
2) In the last thousand years we didn't have farms feeding a global market
and economic collapse based on flooding coastal regions...
Humans lived through an ice age. Doesn't mean one happening now will
mean nobody is effected much.

"As far as I know, EVERY scientist agrees that global warming is going on.
Isn't the only debate over whether it is being caused by man, or is just
part of the regular cycle that's been going on for millions of years?"
As angryinch pointed out, no such debate really exists except perhaps in
some radically fringe groups. There is no scientific evidence at all to
refute the fact the bulk of the warming and the speed of the warming in
the past few decades is SEVERELY impacted by man.
The debate only exists through disinformation articles in the media... not
in the peer reviewed scientific journals that present scientific arguments
or in science circles.
That statement is similar to saying that "As far as I know, EVERY scientist
agrees that evolution is going on. Isn't the only debate over whether it is
natural selection or a supreme being guiding life's steps?"

"As angryinch pointed out, no such debate really exists except perhaps in some radically fringe groups. There is no scientific evidence at all to refute the fact the bulk of the warming and the speed of the warming in the past few decades is SEVERELY impacted by man."
The debate exists because it was created ($$$) by "scientists" funded by the the polluting corporations.

Entreri,
It isn't a debate through scientific means such as research being
published in peer-reviewed scientific journals or formalized debates. The
debate only exists through the general media, which highlights how non-
existant their case is. You better believe if they had any solid evidence, it
would be presented through the normal scientific channels.

I seen a documentary where they investigated exactly who these scientist were that disagreed with the majority consensus.
Quite a few of them were backing big tobacco. They get funding from mainly big oil now to refute the fact that man is causing global warming.

And again, they only disagree through articles in the general media since
anything put forward as actual research in a peer-reviewed journal would
be shredded as would they if they entered formal debates. I think that is
a very telling point.
This actually is similar to the big tobacco when cigarette companies tried
to say smoking wasn't harmful like "science" was trying to say.

Wow, isn't it amazing that FAB hasn't responded? Well, actually, no, I guess it isn't amazing at all. I'll give him credit for knowing when he's been shut down.
Tucking tail and running sometimes is the best route to take, even though it's difficult on the whole personal pride thing...

"I couldn't help but notice the amazing coincidence that the American patent on the production of freon, the principle chlorofluorocarbon used in refrigerators and air conditioners, expired at just about the same time freon was banned. Those countries that had begun producing freon without paying for the privilege were asked to stop. And a new chemical com- pound, a commercial product that would be protected by patent, would soon be substituted and make a lot of money for the company that produced it.
Indirect evidence pointing to a decrease in the ozone layer is absurd. There has been an increase in reported skin cancers. Reports of skin cancer may be increasing, but that isn't a good indication of UV levels. Increased skin cancer might have been caused by people moving to sunnier climates. People from America's North and Northeast have moved to the South and Southwest in the last forty years. During this same period, suntans became a fashion statement. Why not blame the increase in skin cancers on golf? It also might be that doctors and their patients have learned recently to look for those little fast-growing dark spots on the skin and have simply gotten better at diagnosing and reporting skin cancer. To measure the amount of UV reaching the Earth unambiguously, you would not measure cancer, you would measure the UV light reaching the earth. Just put a $6,000 UV measuring instrument on the ground at one of those stations in Antarctica and check it for a few years. Couldn't somebody do this and report it? If they have, I haven't heard about it.
Beyond the lack of scientific evidence, it makes no sense anyhow that we could destroy ozone in the upper atmosphere. If a hole in the ozone layer appeared somehow, here's what would happen: The UV rays from the sun would come through that hole and strike the Earth's atmosphere, where they would be absorbed by the miles-thick layer of oxygen surrounding the Earth. Then it would make more ozone. When the UV rays from the sun combine with oxygen, they form ozone. The ozone thus formed absorbs UV light, which continues to come from the sun, and prevents it from penetrating any farther into the oxygen below that has not been converted to ozone. That is why we have oxygen to breathe down here and ozone in the upper atmosphere. If all the nations in the world agreed to spend all of their money to eliminate the ozone layer- they couldn't do it. It can't go away unless all the oxygen in the atmosphere were to go away, and then, guess what-we couldn't breathe, until the green plants made some more. The ozone in the upper atmosphere regulates itself. H you measure a drop in some variable like ozone, it doesn't mean it is going or gone. Put a stick on the beach marking the edge of the last wave while the tide is coming in, then come back in an hour with another stick. You'll notice that the tide has come in ten feet in an hour, but if you predict that in a year the tide would have come in 87,000 feet, you'd be dead wrong.
The concept that human beings are capable of causing the planet to overheat or lose its ozone seems about as ridiculous as blaming the Magdalenian paintings for the last ice age. There is a notion that our emissions are causing the temperature of the planet to go up, even though the temperature is not going up. Even if the temperature were going up, we would be foolish to think we caused it. We could just as reasonably blame it on cows. In the nineteenth century the temperature went down. In this century it's gone up only about half a degree. The trend over the last two centuries is down. Down is not warmer."

"The chairman of the Federal Atmospheric Commission is having dinner tonight with his secretary and some expert they flew in from Cal Tech. He just announced tonight on CNN that his lab needed another $50 million dollars to study ozone depletion. Over swordfish, with the new science correspondent from CNN, they are congratulating themselves on what a smooth job they did today on the news. Creme caramel and B&Bs and cappuccinos later they promise to meet again Oslo at the Envirocon World 2000 meeting next fall.

...

Who are these people who make comfortable salaries arranging scientific symposia and stories for the media? They aren't politicians. Politicians don't know anything about scientific things. They just want to look like they do. Somebody has to advise them. Who are those advisors? It's an important question because those people--who are always having to come up with the imminent disasters that can be prevented by governmental projects, sponsored by informed and well meaning politicians-are manipulating you.

...

Imagine two hypothetical labs competing for public funds. One of those labs announces in a series of scientific papers that they have found some unexpected and very interesting phenomena in the upper atmosphere that contradict the currently accepted theories on the radiogenic formation of carbon-14. This could have a dramatic impact on the radio isotopic dating of fossils. The time frame for human evolution might be a tenth of what has previously been concluded. We may have evolved from the fossils in the Oldavai Gorge in only a couple of hundred thousand years. All of biology may be much younger than we think. More research would be required to confirm this. Biologists allover the world are curious and very excited. The lab is requesting a million dollars from the National Science Foundation to conduct a more detailed study.
A second lab working on upper atmospheric physics calls a press conference to report preliminary data on what appears to be a giant hole in the ozone layer and warns the reporters that if something isn't done about it-including millions of dollars in grants to study it further-the world as we know it will be coming to a tragic end. Skin cancer is epidemic, and there are reports of sheep going blind from looking up to the sky. People are starting to worry about having sunglasses that shield their eyes from ultraviolet light. Children begin to learn about it in school, and they are taught to notice the intensity of the UV light when they get off the bus.
Which one of these two laboratories will get funding? Follow the money trail from your pocket to the laboratories and notice that it passes through politicians who need you and by the interest groups who with the media train you. James Buchanan noted thirty years ago--and he is still correct- that, as a rule, there is no vested interest in seeing a fair evaluation of a public scientific issue."

Kary Mullis?
A Nobel Laureate for CHEMISTRY, not climatology.
Also an AIDS conspiracy theorist suggesting HIV is not related to AIDS... (also outside of his field of expertise)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=AIDS_conspiracy
BTW, I recommend you run everyone of these glorified op-ed authors through source watch to get their full credentials and any whiff of corruption.

"Claims made by scientists, in contrast to claims made by movie critics or theologians, can be separated from the scientists who make them. It isn't important to know who Isaac Newton was. He discovered that force is equal to mass times acceleration. He was an antisocial, crazy bastard who wanted to burn down his parents' house. But force is still equal to mass times acceleration. It can be demonstrated by anybody with a pool table and familiar with Newton's concepts."

Kary Mullis says no one is measuring UV radiation at the South Pole, and that ozone depletion claims aren't backed up by evidence. Is he wrong or not? His credentials don't change the facts he's talking about.

"Is he wrong or not? His credentials don't change the facts he's talking about."
Then why bring them up like they have any bearing on this debate? Just another man with a blog.
"Kary Mullis says no one is measuring UV radiation at the South Pole, and that ozone depletion claims aren't backed up by evidence. "
Well, ScienceDaily seems to disagree, quoting European Space Agency, but they're in the grand conspiracy theory known as "Science", so I'm sure we should listen to the Guy with the Blog.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061002215000.htm
Record Ozone Loss During 2006 Over South Pole
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMQBOKKKSE_index_0.html
Record ozone loss during 2006 over South Pole
This despite the ban on CFC's:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020422greengas.html
"climate change may surpass chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as the main driver of overall ozone loss."
(above link is to NASA, more conspiracy lunatics)
I wonder how the ESA could make such a proclamation without measuring anything?

006 ozone hole as measured by the SCIAMACHY instrument onboard ESA's Envisat satellite.
"Ozone loss is derived by measuring the area and the depth of the ozone hole. The size of this year's ozone hole is 28 million square km, nearly as large as the record ozone hole extension during 2000, and the depth of the ozone hole is around 100 Dobson Units, rivalling the record low ozone values in 1998. This year's record ozone loss was reached because these two measurements occurred during the same time period. (A Dobson unit is a unit of measurement that describes the thickness of the ozone layer in a column directly above the location being measured.) "
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061002215000.htm

I wish none of this was true. I wish all I had to worry about was making money for my family and figuring out early retirement. I wish my concerns for the future went no farther, and it is tempting to just be complacent. However, I've learned through life experiences that being complacent is a recipe to disaster. You have to be proactive and face harsh bitter truths. Staying home in bed never paid the bills.

To counter all the claims on this thread that "the scientific community" is of one mind and that global warming is undebatable.

"Well, ScienceDaily seems to disagree"

Where? Did you link the wrong article?
Neither of those links says anything about UV radiation levels. Mullis is correct, the alarmist claims of UV radiation levels have no basis in fact because no one is measuring UV levels.

The article does say this:

"The ozone hole, first recognised in 1985, typically persists until November or December"

So was there an ozone hole before 1985, or was that simply the first year anyone noticed the phenomenon that has existed for millions of years? Do you know?

"Ozone loss is derived by measuring the area and the depth of the ozone hole. The size of this year's ozone hole is 28 million square km, nearly as large as the record ozone hole extension during 2000"

The Ozone layer blocks UV rays. If you don't accept this, I will gladly hunt up some links for you.
Therefor, if the hole gets bigger, more UV rays go through. Even if it closes yearly, if it was bigger throughout the year, it lets in more UV radiation. This is simple induction.

Reply Post

“This is the official website of the Mixed Martial Arts llc. Commercial
reproduction, distribution or transmission of any part or parts of this website
or any information contained therein by any means whatsoever without the prior
written permission is not permitted.”